Madras High Court
T.P.Gandhimani vs The Special Deputy Collector ... on 15 June, 2023
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.06.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
and
M.P(MD)No.1 of 2010
T.P.Gandhimani ... Appellant/Appellant
Vs.
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
cum Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai-600 028.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Tiruchuli Road,
Aruppukkottai,
Virudhunagar District. ... Respondents/Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Order Section 47-
A (10) Indian Stamp Act, to call for the records relating to the order No.
52284/N4/07 dated 26.02.2010 (signed on 03.03.2010) and despatched
on 12.03.2010) by the 2nd respondent confirming the order of the 1st
respondent passed in Na.Ka.Tha.Pa.No.250/07, dated 24.08.2009 and to
set aside the same.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/7
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
For Appellants : Mr.Babu Rajendran
For Respondents : Mr.N.GA.Natraj
Government Advocate
JUDGMENT
The present appeal has been filed challenging the order passed by
the 2nd respondent herein fixing the value of the property at
Rs.15,00,000/- per acre.
2. The appellant herein had purchased an extent of 4 acres out of
4.18 acres in Survey No.27/3 in Periyauliampatti Village on 09.02.2007.
The total consideration as per the said sale deed is Rs.4,00,000/-. The
appellant had paid stamp duty of Rs.36,800/-. On the basis of complaint
lodged by some third parties, the Sub Registrar had referred the matter
under Section 47-A to the 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent after
conducting an enquiry, arrived at a finding that the value of the property
per acre would be Rs.13,00,000/- and directed the purchaser to pay
stamp duty as per the said value. Aggrieved over the same, the appellant
had filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent
by his order, dated 26.02.2010 had not only confirmed the said valuation
fixed by the original authority, but has proceeded to enhance the value of
Rs.13,00,000/- to Rs.15,00,000/-. The said order is under challenge in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the present appeal.
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
3. According to the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant/purchaser, the property was purchased by him on 09.02.2007
as an agricultural property. Admittedly, even as per the report of the
District Registrar, Coconut, Sapota and Tamarind trees are there in the 4
acres of land. Therefore, the authorities were not right in calculating the
stamp duty at square feet rate. He further contended that unless the
authorities have got any doubt with regard to the valuation of the
property, the same cannot be referred under Section 47-A of the Act. But
in the present case, they have initiated proceedings at the instance of the
land broker and his vendor. Therefore, the authorities have no
jurisdiction whatsoever to initiate such proceedings. He further
contended that on the same day, his vendor has executed a document in
Doc.No.2232 of 2007 for the balance extent of 18 cents in favour of his
wife. Even in the said document, it has been valued at Rs.1,000/- per
cent. In the same rate, the appellant has also purchased the property
under the present documents. Therefore, the authorities were not right in
enhancing the value of the property. He further contended that the
appellate authority has no jurisdiction whatsoever to enhance the market
value of the property in the appeal filed by the purchaser. Hence, he
prayed for allowing the appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
4. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the
respondents pointed out that out of 4.18 acres, 4 acres were purchased
by the present appellant on 09.02.2007. On the same day, the vendor has
executed a registered settlement deed in favour of his wife for the
balance 18 cents under Document No.2232/2007. Though initially the
property was valued at Rs.1,000/- per cent, the said document was also
referred under Section 47-A and finally, the authorities have fixed the
value at more than Rs.18,000/- per cent. Therefore, when the same value
is referred to the present sale deed, the value of the property would be
Rs.18,00,000/- per acre. However, the authorities have chosen to fix the
market value only at the rate of Rs.15,00,000/- per acre. Hence, he
prayed for sustaining the order passed by the first appellant authority.
5. I have carefully considered the submissions made on either
side.
6. There is no dispute that the appellant herein had purchased the
property on 09.02.2007 at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- per acre. On the same
day, the same vendor has executed a registered settlement deed in favour
of his wife under Document No.2232 of 2007 wherein he has also sold
the balance 18 cents valuing at Rs.1,000/- per cent. However, according
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
to the learned Government Advocate for the respondents, the said
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
document was also referred under Section 47-A and deficit stamp duty
was collected.
7. The original authority after considering the submission, has
arrived at a finding that the value of the land is Rs.13,00,000/- per acre.
After arriving at the said value, he has also found that a deficit stamp
duty of Rs.3,85,800/- has to be paid by the purchaser. When this order is
challenged before the appellate authority, the first appellate authority has
got powers either to reduce the market value or to confirm the same.
However, in the appeal filed by the purchaser, the appellate authority has
chosen to enhance the market value. The appellate authority has no
jurisdiction whatsoever to enhance the market value in an appeal filed by
the purchaser, especially when no suo moto proceedings have been
initiated by the appellate authority. Therefore, this Court is of the view
that the order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside on the
ground that he has no jurisdiction to pass such an order.
8. In view of the above said deliberations, the impugned order of
the 2nd respondent is hereby set aside and the order of the 1st respondent,
dated 08.08.2007 is hereby restored. The appeal stands allowed to the
extent as stated above. The Sub Registrar shall collect the amount as per
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the order of the Special Deputy Collector, dated 08.08.2007.
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
9. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands allowed. No costs.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
15.06.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
gbg
To
1.The Special Deputy Collector (Stamps),
Virudhunagar,
Virudhunagar District.
2.The Chief Controlling Revenue Authority
cum Inspector General of Registration,
Chennai-600 028.
3.The Sub-Registrar,
Sub-Registrar Office,
Tiruchuli Road,
Aruppukkottai,
Virudhunagar District.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
R.VIJAYAKUMAR,J.
gbg
Judgment made in
C.M.A(MD)No.466 of 2010
15.06.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
